Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Biden defends stimulus plan

Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:04 AM EDT
us-news, politics, us, economy, biden, joe-biden
Ben Feller, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 7 photos
<p>Vice President Joe Biden speaks about the economy and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Thursday, Sept. 3, 2009, at the Brookings Institution in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)</p>

Vice President Joe Biden speaks about the economy and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Thursday, Sept. 3, 2009, at the Brookings Institution in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Defending a costly plan to revitalize the economy, Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday said the government's sweeping stimulus effort "is in fact working" despite steady Republican criticism and public skepticism.

"The recovery act has played a significant role in changing the trajectory of our economy, and changing the conversation in this country," Biden said. "Instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we are talking about the end of a recession."

Nearly 200 days into the effort, Biden delivered an upbeat report card about the $787 billion rescue effort that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress. He quoted estimates by private analysts that the plan has created or saved 500,000 to 750,000 jobs so far. But many millions remain out of work.

The effectiveness of the two-year program is a matter of sharp political debate, and Biden sought to counter critics with a listing of tangible results.

"One of the criticisms is that it is simply a grab bag of different programs," Biden said in a speech at The Brookings Institution. "But the fact that the recovery act is multifaceted doesn't reflect a lack of design, it is the design."

The stimulus package is a mix of tax cuts, increased spending on Medicaid and huge investments in infrastructure, education, energy projects and more.

The White House is eager to promote signs of progress as the economy lumbers out of recession. Many economists warn that the unemployment rate will keep rising until at least next summer, and it is that measure — the loss or creation of jobs — by which many Americans decide whether economic life is getting better.

The Republican Party criticized Biden's speech. "The Democrats' rhetoric on their economic experiment doesn't match with the reality of millions of Americans remaining unemployed," said Republican Party chief Michael Steele. "The stimulus was an economic experiment that failed Americans."

Obama's Council of Economic Advisers on Sept. 10 will report an updated projection of the number of jobs created or saved because of the stimulus plan. Biden said he expected it will back up his predictions of 150,000 jobs in the first 100 days and another 600,000 formed or saved over the second 100 days of the act.

Biden warned that the recovery will be uneven. But he said so far, the law is "doing more, faster, more efficiently, and more effectively than most expected."

The White House, though, has also admitted that its initial economic forecasts to sell the stimulus were too rosy. Many Republican leaders say the stimulus is not working nearly as well as the White House promotes, and at huge cost of debt to the nation.

With Obama on vacation at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, the White House hopes Biden's message will break through.

A Gallup poll last month found 51 percent of Americans wished the government would have spent less to stimulate the economy. The same poll found 41 percent thought the stimulus package was helping the economy in the short term; 33 percent saw no effect, and 24 said it was making the economy worse.

The vice president's appearance is part of a concerted White House push in advance of the 200th day of the stimulus act on Saturday. Five top administration officials plan to speak about the law's benefits on Thursday in appearances in Arkansas, Virginia, Illinois, California and Minnesota.

Public approval of Obama's performance and of his handling of the economy have slipped. Polls now put both figures slightly above 50 percent.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Ben Feller's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Term Limits Group, White Folks
  • Regions: United States , Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (118)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2
saltoftheearth68

I see the economy getting better for those people who work hard and apply themselves in a productive manner. I'm glad to hear that more police and especially teachers are being hired. American children need more people who are capable of undoing the damage that parents are putting into the young minds.

  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:16 AM EDT
URFullOfIt

Walton and Johnson radio show had a caller this am.

She said, she works for a car dealer. In processing clunker paper, her dealership has learned, if a customer owes back taxes or child support, the federal government is diverting the clunker money, to that debt.

Which means the dealer will not get paid for the car.

What's Biden gonna say about stimulus and non GM dealerships closing.

A South Dakota Auto Dealer is owed 3 million, still waiting. Dealer doesn't get paid, neither will the manufacturers, Honda, Toyota, Ford etc.

Blow some more hotair Joe

  • 9 votes
#1.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:05 AM EDT
rick-673281

Yep and another 570,000 new jobless claims filed porkulus sure is working in overdrive

  • 8 votes
#1.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:27 AM EDT
Paul Lucero

Joe Biden is an effete dude that makes up most of what he says on fly. I personally do not believe a word he says.

  • 4 votes
#1.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:13 AM EDT
gregjarvis

yup, good ol porkulus has the afterburners on at full throttle.... what a joke.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:28 AM EDT
James99990

Where exactly are these new teachers being hired? All I have seen in the recent weeks is teachers being laid off and schools closing.

As far as people working hard, I have friends all the way from construction to PHD's who work hard, and still are being laid off. The only people I have seen benefit from this stimulus package is the banks, who have in turn stuck it to the American people.

The current administration still has another 3 years, and I hope it goes quickly.

  • 3 votes
#1.5 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:29 AM EDT
Nicey-1026620

Of course it is Joe.

Though, in reality, it's really the Federal Reserve massive insurance program of the financial sector and spending in buying up assets to put onto its own balance sheet that is stabilizing the financial sector and thus allowing businesses to return to normal operation.

Not saying the stimulus won't help, but that money will be coming in the following year, it hasn't done much to this point.

    #1.6 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:38 AM EDT
    RI Mom

    Dear UR FULL OF IT:

    IRS “may” withhold money from Cash for Clunkers dealers’ payments should the dealer owe the federal government back taxes.

    IF THE DEALER OWES $$$.

    Now that is fair!

    • 2 votes
    #1.7 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:07 PM EDT
    URFullOfIt

    Glad to see you paid attention to my post.

    I'll say again "The customer owes tax or child support.

    Should a dealer owe money. Yes it would be fair.

    But that is not situation, the customer, the customer owes.

    So the dealers are not getting paid.

    • 1 vote
    #1.8 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:30 PM EDT
    estela2008

    If you want to talk about the #1 cause of poverty lets look at teh deadbeat and absentee father rate in this country.

    • 1 vote
    #1.9 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:40 PM EDT
    RI Mom

    TO UR FULL OF IT:

    I GOOGLED the facts:

    UPDATE: DOT Spokesman Ray Tyson says the IRS “may” withhold money from Cash for Clunkers dealers’ payments should the dealer owe the federal government back taxes. I’ve heard from a dealer to whom this has happened. I have amended the text of the e-mail above and removed the “Wild Ass Rumor” designation.

    This was a "wild ass" rumor about the customer getting stiffed, and just by repeating it doesn't make it true.

    • 2 votes
    #1.10 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:48 PM EDT
    URFullOfIt

    u seem confused, your keep twisting my post. As I said IF THE DEALER OWES MONEY, YES IT FAIR TO TAKE IT.

    Where are you coming from? Nobody said anything about the customer getting stiffed.

    Customers purchasing the cars, if the customer owe's money to IRS or baby momma, the government is diverting, the money, that the dealer is suppose to receive for the sale of the car.

    In other words, the money the dealer is legally entitled to, is being taken to pay for the customers debt.

    End result, dead beat dad, gets out paying the money he owes. And he leaves with a new car.

    There is no wild ass rumour, this was an employee, stating what they have learned about the program reimbursements.

    • 1 vote
    #1.11 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:31 PM EDT
    Truth Hurts-840829

    to fix things maybe we should break a few eggs

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRbiu_kH-HM

    withdraw your money from the banks except what is needed to keep your account open - then just deposit enough money to cover any checks you write

    this will lower your average daily balance and put the banks and the government in a position where they will have to listen to the people...or go the way of dinosaurs

    the power is yours if you really want it

    I am officially un-banked and have been for years

      #1.12 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:44 PM EDT
      RI Mom

      To U R F O It;

      Nowhere is the clunker/trader/ buyer asked about their personal debt to IRS or Child support.

      The CAR DEALER

      (a) reimburses the customer up front the 3500.00 or 4500.00

      (b) promises to reimburse the customer when the GOVT sends them the rebate money.

      The Government checks on the Dealer's Eligibility status which requires that the Dealer has their federal tax money paid in full BEFORE rebates are sent.

      To satisfy the Government taxes, IRS “may” withhold money from Cash for Clunkers dealers’ payments should the dealer owe the federal government back taxes.

      This is what you said:

      She said, she works for a car dealer. In processing clunker paper, her dealership has learned, if a customer owes back taxes or child support, the federal government is diverting the clunker money, to that debt.

      Which means the dealer will not get paid for the car.

      I'm not sure where the confusion is. A Dealer in good standing with the IRS will eventualy get the rebate.

      YOUR WORDS: In other words, the money the dealer is legally entitled to, is being taken to pay for the customers debt.

      I understood the ruling to be that a Dealer will not get their rebate money until they pay their taxes.

      I don't see where a dealer is paying a customer's debt.

      • 1 vote
      #1.13 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:17 PM EDT
      questforfire

      If you call unemployment rising from 9.4% to 9.7% better, then I guess you're right.

      • 1 vote
      #1.14 - Fri Sep 4, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
      Reply
      WatchTheOtherHand

      Biden is so full of it. Please... the 'stimulus' was a government freebie giveaway to repay political favors. Less than 10% of it has even been spent. Recessions when NOTHING is done tend to only last around 18 months. We are well past that point already. A recession at this time is just going through it NATURAL recovery period. The stimulus money was a throwaway of nearly 800 BILLION dollars.

      Considering that we had to BORROW that 800 Billion dollars, it will either force the economy into another recession after a brief recovery when the government drastically raises taxes, or spiral inflation out of control when the government starts printing more money. Its no small surprise that we would see a short term bounce out of spending THAT much money, but its like you suddenly maxing out a $10,000 credit card. Sure, it might make you LOOK rich to all your neighbors for a few months, until the bill starts coming in the mail. Then the LONG-TERM problem of how to pay for it starts to become the focus.

      • 8 votes
      Reply#2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:19 AM EDT
      Average_Guy

      Super - $787 Billion - let's see - how did Uncle Joe list it out?

      Citing a scorecard, Biden says that over the past 100 days, using stimulus money, the administration has met its goals of paying for 135,000 education jobs and hiring or keeping 5,000 police. Other goals have been exceeded, he said, from the number of highway projects to new water systems to health centers.

      So that money has created/saved 500 jobs. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Note that it paid for 135,000 education jobs, but hired or kept 500 police. That means that the education jobs were neither created or kept, simply paid for. I thought that's what we had local taxes for. There are your brilliant government minds at work.

      Notice also - "Citing a scorecard." What scorecard? Where is it kept so we can all see what is happening with OUR tax dollars? Funny - most of the reported speech was generalities with zero proof. Oh, that's right politicians don't lie.

      And finally, Uncle Joe's statement, "more effective than we hoped." I think that about says it all, don't you? 500 jobs for $787B. Break out the champagne folks, it's time to celebrate!

      • 6 votes
      Reply#3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:47 AM EDT
      rick-673281

      Hundreds of thousands of jobs still being lost each month and they are celebrating true unemployment well over 10% millions living off welfare time to dance in the streets.

      • 8 votes
      #3.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:07 AM EDT
      my-pockets-r-mt

      In our area school enrollments are consistently decreasing but they are hiring or keeping more teachers. Huh?

        #3.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:47 AM EDT
        A-s-gi-li

        Average Guy

        From the quote you put in you're comment:

        hiring or keeping 5,000 police

        And from your comment:

        So that money has created/saved 500 jobs

        500 jobs for $787B.

        I hope the average guy can tell the difference between 5,000 and 500! I thought it was a typo the first time, but twice?

        That is how rumors and false information are created.

        I hope you are not always that inaccurate when you pass along information.

          #3.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:17 PM EDT
          gasyusblast

          this is incredible,

          Received new credit card today, Limit 787 bil, bought new car,house,16 pair's of shoes & a make over, took all my friends to lunch....but today I went to get a Lotte but my card didn't work....and when I got home all these letters showed up from a guy named "first months statement....well gotta go, busy busy living the dream...doing real good.

          p.s. can you send me some money to pay the bill...I promise next month I will look for work..ok?

          signed,

          one pissed off bill payer

          • 1 vote
          #3.4 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:24 PM EDT
          careercarguy

          Well stated.

            #3.5 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:23 PM EDT
            Reply
            kazutam

            "Smoke and Mirrors"

            I truly believe that will be the "legacy" of this administration.

            See I just went to that website that they set up for the "people" to be able to track the spending from this boondoggle.(www.recovery.gov)

            Pretty difficult to get real appreciable numbers out of that site for the "average" American.

            I'm sure that somewhere it all adds up so they can say"I told you so". But to be honest I'm not going to go thru all the effort it would take to track it down and add it all up.

            I did find it interesting that the BIGGEST outlay of the money given to the states is for "health care", I wonder if the current bill they are attempting to pass is just meant to carry on with this current spending.

            • 2 votes
            Reply#4 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:11 AM EDT
            c anderson

            Exactly where is that turnaround? Not in my area.

            My son, a loyal UAW member, listened to the current administration and believed. He knew he would be losing his job at a Chrysler assembly plant, so he took the buyout. The stimulus package promised him that there were lots of "shovel ready" projects just waiting to hire him. So, he spent $7000 going to heavy equipment school and getting certified plus his Class A CDL. That was in April. Guess what--THERE ARE NO JOBS!!!

            I'll believe there's a turnaround just as soon as I see those "shovel ready" projects hire him.

            • 5 votes
            Reply#5 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:32 AM EDT
            kazutam

            I'll believe there's a turnaround just as soon as I see those "shovel ready" projects hire him.

            Yeah, what ever happened to all of those "shovel ready" projects/jobs?

            I guess that they have gone the way of all the other promises that have been made and broken.

            • 2 votes
            #5.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:04 AM EDT
            Burlap Mudflap

            c

            Stim projects have barely started in Monterey Co. Ca. It's too soon the measure the effect.

            • 1 vote
            #5.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:29 AM EDT
            c anderson

            So "shovel ready" meant a year from now? I do remember being led to believe that relief would come soon. Maybe that should have been spelled out more clearly. That $7000 in school money could have been used to feed the 4 kids.

            Meanwhile, unemployment runs out, houses are lost.......

            • 2 votes
            #5.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:32 AM EDT
            Burlap Mudflap

            c

            It stinks but the local pencil pushers take their time. I don't know if according to "government time" this is fast or not.

            • 1 vote
            #5.4 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:49 AM EDT
            c anderson

            The money hasn't even been released to our local pencil pushers yet even though the local projects are clearly outlined and planned. It just seems to me that it should have been overseen and coordinated in a much more efficient manor. Looks like very little actual planning went into it. Pass the bill but don't plan for what happens after it's passed.

            • 2 votes
            #5.5 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:00 PM EDT
            gasyusblast

            We are going to need all those "shovel ready" people to load the tones of dollars on ships headed to the bill collector...and his name is "China"

            • 1 vote
            #5.6 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:32 PM EDT
            Burlap Mudflap

            c

            I can tell you several road and airport improvement projects have just started. Local airports (Monterey and Salinas) get runway upgrades and road upfits in South Monterey Co.

              #5.7 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:22 PM EDT
              Reply
              Earz6280

              yup job loss is killing small towns like this:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaS028GN7ss

                Reply#6 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:27 AM EDT
                GOP Rules

                I wish somehow Biden would get lie-induced laryngitis so he would never be heard from again. Sure would make the world look at us in a better light.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#7 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:29 AM EDT
                Burlap Mudflap

                GOP

                You may have to eat your words, if not now in 2010/2012.

                enjoy your meal

                • 1 vote
                #7.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:32 AM EDT
                GOP Rules

                Burlap - "GOP

                You may have to eat your words, if not now in 2010/2012.

                enjoy your meal"

                ROFL, my words might be all any of us will be able to afford to eat by 2010/2012 with the current administration making decisions.

                • 2 votes
                #7.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:37 AM EDT
                Burlap Mudflap

                GOP

                enjoy

                • 1 vote
                #7.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:25 PM EDT
                Scotty-1083859

                Burlap Mudflap.

                How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?

                Do you still like this president?

                  #7.4 - Sat Sep 5, 2009 11:50 PM EDT
                  Reply
                  Carolyn Johansen

                  Wait until October--the other shoe has not dropped on the economy yet. Families who rent cannot pay their rent--that is why there are increasing numbers of homeless people in the USA. Landlords are evicting tenants left and right and have no income to pay their own mortgages. What happens when they default? It is only September and there are already more bank defaults this year than last year. The number of homes in foreclosure continue to rise. Many unemployed are about to lose their benefits and more unemployed join the ranks everyday. Businesses of every size continue to lay people off.

                  When will economists realize that the tools they use to measure the health of the US economy are flawed? When will anybody admit that this is a Depression? When will anybody admit that Obama and Congress have not done enough to address this economic crisis?

                  Obama will go down in history as another Hoover and the increasing number of homeless encampments around the USA will become known as Obamavilles.

                  • 3 votes
                  Reply#8 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:36 AM EDT
                  Nicey-1026620

                  Businesses of every size continue to lay people off.

                  Even during an expansion businesses layoff/fire 300,000-350,000 people every month.

                  That's considered normal 4-week moving average of initial unemployment claims. The reasons you list for another shoe dropping aren't going to happen. At least not in the near term.

                  Now, if the situation isn't fixed during recovery, then yes, it is likely the next recession will be bad. But so long as it's not financial led, it might not be as severe. The real problem is looking down the road decades from now.

                    #8.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:53 AM EDT
                    WatchTheOtherHand

                    I've got news for you... the commercial real estate bubble is also just on the verge of bursting. Stores can't afford to rent out mall space when sales are so dismally low. They also can't pay their rents and the BILLIONS across the country in loans to have built most of these commercial spaces is going to hit the banks hard in the next 6 months. Is Obama going to bailout the banks once again? This won't happen in decades, but just MONTHS from now.

                    • 1 vote
                    #8.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:35 PM EDT
                    Nicey-1026620

                    I've got news for you... the commercial real estate bubble is also just on the verge of bursting. Stores can't afford to rent out mall space when sales are so dismally low. They also can't pay their rents and the BILLIONS across the country in loans to have built most of these commercial spaces is going to hit the banks hard in the next 6 months. Is Obama going to bailout the banks once again? This won't happen in decades, but just MONTHS from now.

                    That's already happening/happened. They've sold sky scrapers off at 10 cents on the dollar. This has been going on.

                    Retail malls/retail spaces were already emptying. That happens in every recession. And has been going on since 2007.

                    It's not going to hit the banks at all because of the accounting rule changes.

                    There are 0 economic indicators that point to what you are saying. If there were, we would see it in money flow.

                    That's not to say something bad can't happen. Option-ARMs start resetting in mass in 2010/2011. That could be very dangerous. The commercial mortgage market just isn't as large as housing, and not as many ABS were based off it.

                    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s1152.pdf

                    Total mortgages as of 2007 were 14.557 trillion in debt. 11.136 trillion of which was on homes. Commercial is 2.473 trillion, it's simply a much smaller market.

                      #8.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:50 PM EDT
                      WatchTheOtherHand

                      There is NO way that the Federal Government will be able to borrow the money it insists on spending without raising interest rates here really soon. The last Treasury auction went horrible. When those interest rates go up the commercial market will FALL. It maybe a smaller market, but those are companies that employ workers. Which means more job losses and quite honestly the market is a bit jittery right now waiting for a massive correction to the last 3 or 4 months. Any news right now will send the markets spiralling back down. Even the FED raising the interest rate up a point would probably spin us right back into a downturn.

                      What do you think will happen to all those ARMs when the interest rate is forced to rise?

                        #8.4 - Fri Sep 4, 2009 9:16 AM EDT
                        Reply
                        James99990

                        And I hope those homeless encampments fly a flag that says "Obamaville".

                        • 1 vote
                        Reply#9 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:41 AM EDT
                        CaringPerson

                        I read today that in Atlanta, Federal Stimulus money is being used to pay rent for people that are "in danger of becoming homeless".

                        I guess that increases employment, since someone has to be hired to write and pass out all those taxpayer-funded rent checks.

                        • 2 votes
                        Reply#10 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:09 PM EDT
                        lisaed

                        Liar Liar....pants on fire.

                        • 3 votes
                        Reply#11 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:09 PM EDT
                        smpcompdude

                        Kinda what I was thinking lisa

                        • 1 vote
                        #11.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:20 PM EDT
                        Reply
                        gjfromfla

                        So this is the economic recovery we've all been waiting for. Whoopadi-do!!! (And) our economic situation, NOW, is better than expected? Somebody must have very low expectations uncle JOE.

                        • 6 votes
                        Reply#12 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:10 PM EDT
                        James99990

                        He keeps shoveling it hoping that someone out there believes him when in reality he really should be saying. "we haven't got a clue what the hell we are doing".

                        • 3 votes
                        #12.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:20 PM EDT
                        gjfromfla

                        It's funny they're still trying to sell this thing six months into it. What they're counting on is a mood shift in the American Consumer. It's are to get happy & go out & spend money when you know the administration plans on taxing/stealing what little income we have left.

                          #12.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:33 PM EDT
                          James99990

                          The majority of American consumers are reluctant to spend any money, and if they do are spending only on necessities. Could it be that even though it hasn't been said, they don't believe the administration either?

                          • 1 vote
                          #12.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:52 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          dsanthony

                          Most of the infamous "stimulus" money has not even been spent -- as it was focused more on resurrecting the leftist agenda than on resurrecting the economy. What has been spent has been ineffectual and wasted money.

                          • 5 votes
                          #13 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:18 PM EDT
                          lisaed

                          dsanthony---and it's doing diddly to create jobs in the private sector---because it was not designed to do such.

                          • 4 votes
                          #13.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:24 PM EDT
                          OBAMA-FAN

                          So the economy is on it's way to being corrected. the stock and real estate markets are stabilizing and showing consistent growth, and you are complaining because they didn't spend all of the money? LMAO!!!

                          • 3 votes
                          #13.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:28 PM EDT
                          dsanthony

                          The economy is working to correct itself, as it always does -- despite the abuses heaped on it by the obama camp. But his long term deficits are moving america in a direction america has never moved before. The stability of the dollar is threatened, and the american economy could soon face a larger collapse than the one caused by the credit crunch last year.

                          Germany before hitler comes to mind. Or with obama in charge, maybe germany during hitler would be a better analogy.

                          • 5 votes
                          #13.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:34 PM EDT
                          OBAMA-FAN

                          The economy is working to correct itself, as it always does

                          The last time the economy worked to "correct itself" from a "recession of this magnitude was because of WWII! You do realize that of course?! The way this government was headed before the election it would have had unsustainable debt regardless of who was elected! At least Obama is investing in this country in order for it to prosper for years to come! The health care reform with save us money and create jobs. There is absolutely no debate about that! his energy Proposal will create many jobs that can never be exported and lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy! None of this factors in your opinion that "long term deficits are moving america in a direction america has never moved before." You sound like the CBO!

                          BTW, the Hitler comparison is soooo dramatic and inacurate for so many reasons!

                          • 1 vote
                          #13.4 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:45 PM EDT
                          Nofluer

                          Fan #13.2

                          You don't know history. You don't know economics. You don't know economic history. I'd suggest you do some study - it will make you sound much better - like you actually KNOW things instead of that you just repeat the myths and falsehoods you've heard from stupid ignorant people.

                          Anthony #13.3 No - the economy is NOT working to correct itself. This isn't a business-cycle recession. It's a financial recession and will NOT "correct" until the financial regulatory environment is repaired.

                          What's happening now is that Goldman and the rest of the crooks in the mega-banks are firing up the old pump-and-dump engine to recycle the bad derivatives that now pollute their balance sheets - and sell them to other gullible "investors" as a "new product". Get ready for round two of the depression.

                          • 2 votes
                          #13.5 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:49 PM EDT
                          dsanthony

                          actually you're half right. The depression of the 30s was only ended by ww2. But the depression would have ended much sooner if roosevelt had not taken such drastic and intrusive measures that actually prevented the market from stablizing. Just as obama's massive spending endangers the economy today, fdr's proto-socialist programs like the wpa, nra and others (many of which were rejected by the scotus as unconstitutional) overpowered the market's ability to correct itself.

                          The "germany before hitler" line was a reference to The In Laws (the Falk/Arkin version, not that later atrocity).

                          • 2 votes
                          #13.6 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:52 PM EDT
                          OBAMA-FAN

                          Nofluer,

                          Thank you for you irrelevant and redundant comment! Now if you are trying to articulate that fact that the economy does have cycles of rise and fall, I'm well aware of that! What you fail to realize or know is that this was not just a normal low in the U.S. economy! There is a saying that "when the U.S. sneezes the world catches a cold!" Well this time the U.S. had a bad cold and the rest of the world had pneumonia! There has never been an economic decline like this since the depression and it took us several years and a World War to dig ourselves out of it! Now if you want to respond with your elementary view of economics feel free, but I wouldn't suggest it!

                          • 1 vote
                          #13.7 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
                          OBAMA-FAN

                          dsanthony,

                          But the depression would have ended much sooner if roosevelt had not taken such drastic and intrusive measures that actually prevented the market from stablizing.

                          That is totally debatable, and has been debated since the depression. You can produce sources that prove your point like I can.

                          According to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, "Only with the New Deal's rehabilitation of the financial system in 1933-35 did the economy begin its slow emergence from the Great Depression." In fact, even famed conservative economist Milton Friedman admitted that the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War."

                          What it boils down to is, are you a gambling person? Would you like to have seen what this economy would have looked like without the stim and TARP? Not me!

                          lets not forget about the programs that were created by the New Deal that are still in effect like Social Security, FDIC, SEC, ect...

                          • 1 vote
                          #13.8 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:11 PM EDT
                          Nicey-1026620

                          actually you're half right. The depression of the 30s was only ended by ww2. But the depression would have ended much sooner if roosevelt had not taken such drastic and intrusive measures that actually prevented the market from stablizing.

                          ??

                          Your argument is that from 1929-1932 when Hoover was president and the government stood by and did very little the market stabilized?

                          The evidence is this.

                          In 1933-1935 fiscal years the government spent money beyond what was traditionally allowed in budget terms and unemployment improved. In 1936 (the only recession within a recession) - 1937 they cut the budget and unemployment increased.

                          They quit spending too soon. The economy was not recovered enough to sustain itself. Regardless of how you want to say it, it was going to take a massive amount of continuous spending to end the recession. And businesses/private enterprise flatly refuse to do that in any time of economic upheavel.

                            #13.9 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:15 PM EDT
                            Nofluer

                            Anthony #13.6

                            So much time, so many false facts.

                            The recession began recovering in March of 1933, less than 2 months after FDR took office, due to the jobs programs instituted by Hoover (Hoover Dam, over 300 Federal Office buildings built by Hoover, etc) FDR expanded those programs and caused the destruction of what he referred to as "excess production" (food) at a time when tens of thousands of people were going hungry and starving to death.

                            The DEPRESSION began when the Fed tightened the money supply prematurely, causing severe deflation, and FDR pushed through his Socialist restrictions on free-market economy and businesses.

                            FDR also has the distinction of causing a recession in the midst of a depression in 1937, and the economy struggled through when he reversed his bad moves, and resumed recovery in 1938.

                            Wars do NOT help economies. They are expensive and the production of the nation is one way - out, and is destroyed, not cycled through the economy. Wars DESTROY economies. The recovery BEFORE the war was strong enough to get the nation through the war, and the removal of millions of men from the work force virtually eliminated unemployment until AFTER the war when it came back, and the GI Bill was a government response to GI unemployment - just as the elimination of child labor improved the jobs market for adults at the beginning of the Industrial Age, sending the GIs to college allowed them to trickle back into the job pool rather than hitting it all at once, and the economy adjusted to them over time as the effect of the Marshall Plan took hold. (The rebuilding of Europe, under the Marshall Plan, and Asia was what REALLY saved our economic hash long-term, and set up the long period of stability and boom years of the 50's and early 60's - until the next Socialist (LBJ) came along and tried to end poverty by handing out cash to poor people.)

                            • 3 votes
                            #13.10 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
                            Nicey-1026620

                            bad derivatives that now pollute their balance sheets

                            Like most financial companies, Goldman Sachs doesn't keep derivatives on it's balance sheet. They're off balance sheet, and still unregulated. That is one thing that amazes me, CDS and other forms of derivatives still have no regulatory body.

                            Largely derivatives are not bad at this point, for derivatives to go bad it requires rising defaults of things like bonds, loans, and various other assets. Most of which have started to decrease or at the very least level off.

                            For on balance sheet bad assets or even off balance sheet bad assets, the Senate changing the mark to market rules has largely nullified the problem.

                            I don't know if I agree with all those things, as mentioned, they are simply returning to prior practices instead of going "Hey, these were bad practices and it's not the way to conduct business."

                              #13.11 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:24 PM EDT
                              c anderson

                              Wars do help economies in a way. They do tend to increase employment--both military and manufacturing.

                              • 2 votes
                              #13.12 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:25 PM EDT
                              Nicey-1026620

                              The DEPRESSION began when the Fed tightened the money supply prematurely, causing severe deflation, and FDR pushed through his Socialist restrictions on free-market economy and businesses.

                              No it didn't.

                              That's not why the money supply contracted. The money supply contracted because credit and cash were simply destroyed and the Fed didn't replace it.

                              As opposed to today, when we saw the credit desctruction, the Fed opened the floodgates and inflated the money supply.

                              When the crash happened, the same thing happened that happened last October/November. Forced selling beyond the stock market into other assets. Only, unlike today. There was no unemployment insurance, no FDIC, etc. Money was simply destroyed.

                              When a bank failed in 1929. The money was gone. Not replaced. Thus gone from the money supply.

                                #13.13 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:28 PM EDT
                                Nicey-1026620

                                Wars do NOT help economies. They are expensive and the production of the nation is one way - out, and is destroyed, not cycled through the economy. Wars DESTROY economies. The recovery BEFORE the war was strong enough to get the nation through the war

                                I think you're wrong about this in reference to WWII.

                                The economy was not strong enough by itself to get thru the war. We debt funded the equivalent of 3.6 trillion dollars total for the war way over budget guidelines each year and way over what would be considered an acceptable level of debt.

                                The money is not going out of the economy. That was a direct expansion of the money supply with the natural result of inflation.

                                  #13.14 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:33 PM EDT
                                  Nofluer

                                  Obama Fan #13.7

                                  You might actually LEARN something if you'd set aside your politics and your nasty comments and stopped being so offensive. Economics and history are non-partisan.

                                  You really have NO idea of how the recession began, why it's still going strong, or how to fix it, do you? You don't even know what KIND of recession we're dealing with here. By your statements, you apparently think it's an "economic" recession! (It's not.)

                                  Tell me, what's a FASB rule #139 Class 3 asset and how does it affect our current situation?

                                  Tell me, what effect did repeal of Glass-Steagle (via Grahamm/Leach/Bliley) in 1999 by Bill Clinton have on our current situation?

                                  Why can Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers be considered the Fathers of the Crash? what did they do, or cause to NOT be done, that essentially made the crashes inevitable?

                                  Tell me, how did a US housing bubble bursting take down the economies of most of the world? (Here's a freeby - The entire US economy is only around $14 to 15 Tn a year - MUCH too small to have that kind of effect.)

                                  • 3 votes
                                  #13.15 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:37 PM EDT
                                  Nicey-1026620

                                  Tell me, what's a FASB rule #139 Class 3 asset and how does it affect our current situation?

                                  As far as I know they issue statement numbers.

                                  Tell me, what effect did repeal of Glass-Steagle (via Grahamm/Leach/Bliley) in 1999 by Bill Clinton have on our current situation?

                                  Banks were not required to loan prime loans under underqualified conditions. They made a decision to do that. They weren't required to lend subprime loans at under qualified conditions, again, banks made that call.

                                  They were certainly never told to create trillions in additional CDS, ABS, and everything else based off of those mortgages.

                                  Why can Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers be considered the Fathers of the Crash? what did they do, or cause to NOT be done, that essentially made the crashes inevitable?

                                  You can say the Federal Reserve provides the circumstances for these bubbles to occur. But they do not actually create them.

                                  If enforcement agencies like the SEC did their job the NAS bubble would never have happened, if real estate/bank/mortgage companies did due diligence that bubble would never have happened.

                                  If banks simply had never lobbied to reduce capital reserve ratio requirements, no bailouts would ever have been needed at all. They would have weathered the downturn with their own money.

                                  Every single major player (wallstreet banks included) would have survived had they simply maintained the 7.5-10% reserve ratio that was standard. But they didn't, they lobbied to be allowed to have lower requirements and congress let them.

                                  Tell me, how did a US housing bubble bursting take down the economies of most of the world? (Here's a freeby - The entire US economy is only around $14 to 15 Tn a year - MUCH too small to have that kind of effect.)

                                  The mortgage debt of this country is 14.557 trillion dollars...of course it can have an impact on the economy. Especially when banks/financial institutions use it as leverage to create ABS, base performing assets off of mortgage values, etc.

                                  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s1152.pdf

                                  Private Business/Banks have about 30 trillion dollars in debts. Of course if their assets fall by 15-30% it can implode the economy.

                                  http://www.myinvestmentanalysis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/debt-in-the-united-states.jpg

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.16 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:56 PM EDT
                                  OBAMA-FAN

                                  Nofluer,

                                  See if you would focus on trying to obtain facts and not trying to talk to my like you actually have knowledge of what you speak you'd be less embarrassing!

                                  The economy recovered a smidgen in 1933, but the unemployment rate was still %15 (for teh next 10yrs), and the GDP was still at it's lowest in american history!

                                  LMAO!!! I will not be quizzed by someone who obviously has no clue what they are talking about! You sound like someone who read a book and thinks they are an expert! Your questions are elementary and simply pitiful....

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.17 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:01 PM EDT
                                  OBAMA-FAN

                                  Nicey,

                                  Why would you bother answering those absolutely ridiculous questions? It wasn't even worth it....

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.18 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:05 PM EDT
                                  Nicey-1026620

                                  It's not like his points are ridiculous. He does have points. I disagree with his interpretation of the importance of the questions he asked.

                                  The Federal Reserve is a very dangerous entity. And they set up the situations where money/credit flows into the economy. The whole thing is the SEC is supposed to be watching when things like Oil futures are being manipulated. That's not the Feds fault.

                                  The Fed supplies the wood for the fire. Free enterprise throws a match on it, then because they can, they spray lighter fluid all over it.

                                  The pricing adjustment of long term assets is an issue. Because mark to market rules required banks to do that quarter over quarter, which means assets that lose value are immediately accounted for on balance sheets.

                                  But again, that would never be a problem if they simply kept higher capital reserve ratio. How hard was it to see this coming? Home prices peaked in 2005. It had an unsustainable run up, just like the DOW in the 20s, Just like the NAS in the 90s. And those run ups always come back near the level of the trendline prior to the run up.

                                  Where did they think values were going? From 2005 till end of 2007 they had 2 more profitable years and still didn't set aside reserves? These CEOs are douchebags. During 2008 some of these companies were setting aside 10 billion a quarter for loan losses...if they had done that from 2005 to 2007 to capital reserves, they would have been safe.

                                  Private Enterprise is the height of ridiculous these days, not the government. They want private profits and socialized losses, the captains of private industry that supposedly were smarter, more efficient than the government came begging on hands and knees to be saved.

                                  They're the problem. It's not the government. Who do we believe runs the government? They are lobbied and wholly owned by the United States of Corporation.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.19 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:16 PM EDT
                                  Nofluer

                                  Nice3y #13.13

                                  "New York had little doubt about what action to take. At its October 8 (1931) meeting, the board of directors voted to raise the discount rage from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 percent. The arguments given at the meeting were, first, the gold outflow itself, and second, "advices from France, where foreign fears concerning the dollar appear to have concentrated, which indicated that an increase in the rate would be interpreted there more favorably than otherwise." Some fear was expressed that the rise in rates might have adverse domestic effect, particularly by interfering with Hoover's efforts to organize a National Credit Corporation, but that fear was belittled. Harrison noted that any unfavorable effect on the bond market could be offset by security purchases, since the executive committee of the Open Market Policy Conference still had authority, under the recommendation of the August 11 meeting, to buy up to $120 million of government securities. The only discordant note was a cablegram from Burgess, who was in Europe ion a mission for the Bank, recommending no action that would bring about higher money rates in the United States. The cablegram was read at the meeting, then disregarded. The reserve board promptly approved the rise in discount rates, several of its members having been strongly in favor of a rise ever since the beginning of the gold drain.

                                  A week later, Eugene Meyer attended the director' meeting at the New York Bank. Harrison proposed a further increase in the discount rate to 3 1/2 percent, giving as the technical reason the continued gold outflow. One director, Charles E. Mitchell, expressed serious doubts about the domestic effects. ...

                                  Between the January 11 and February 24, 1932 meetings of the Conference, government security holdings declined by $11 million, bill holdings by $80 million, while discounts rose $20 million. ...

                                  (January 1933)

                                  The sentiment of most governors was clearly in favor of reducint the portfolio, and the final motion refleccted that sentiment. It gave the executive committee authority to reduct eht System's holdings of Treasury bills, the reduction in January not to exdceed $125 million and not to bring excess reserves belos $500 million. ... The policy recommendation was followed, ..."

                                  (From "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867 - 1960" by Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz.)

                                  Monetary policy after that for a period was pretty much non-existent.

                                  As to banks disappearing, due to technological changes in the society throughout the 20's (such as railroads etc), banks failed at a rate of around 500 per year throughout the 20's. After the Crash in 1929, this rate increased considerably until 1933 when the FDIC was created.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.20 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
                                  OBAMA-FAN

                                  I disagree with his interpretation of the importance of the questions he asked.

                                  That's the very reason I dismissed his comment as ridiculous! I'm mean Glass-Steagall?? Come on!!! And he couldn't even spell it! LMAO!

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.21 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
                                  Nicey-1026620

                                  Raising the Federal Interest Rate does not reduce the money supply. You are also mentioning something that occured in 1931 well after the depression started, and a significant reduction of the money supply had already happened.

                                  The Money Supply, commonly M2, is simply a measure of credit/cash in circulation within our economy. The resulting failure of the stock market reduced the cash/credit present within the economy.

                                  This is an obvious pattern of wealth shifting. Which just happened again. In the 20s Public Debt rose till it was equivalent to GDP and could rise no more, that just happened again in 2007/2008.

                                  By Public Debt, I don't mean National Debt. I mean citizens mortgages, loans, and credit cards. The reason that happens is because of the greed of few who insist on controlling more of the assets, in order to sustain that credit is lent to the masses.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.22 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:39 PM EDT
                                  Nofluer

                                  Nicey #13.16

                                  Thank you for your views on these.

                                  Tell me, what's a FASB rule #139 Class 3 asset and how does it affect our current situation?

                                  The 'class 3's are the "mortgage backed derivatives" - the rule, crated just for this situation, refers to assets on a bank's balance sheet that there have been no recent sale of and that are thus difficult to impossible to assign a meaningful value to. In this case that would be the Mortgage Backed Securities AND the secondary derivatives that they spun off from the first layer of MBDs at a leverage rate of 25:1, and that haven't been sold for a long time because they're pretty much worthless in the current markets. So in a nut shell, it says that the banks, can value these worthless derivatives at whatever they want. So the banks, in order to pump up their balance sheets are valuing them at face value... which they're not. Because of the leverage rate, the total global economic exposure can be estimated at somewhere around $50 Tn.

                                  Tell me, what effect did repeal of Glass-Steagle (via Graham/Leach/Bliley) in 1999 by Bill Clinton have on our current situation?

                                  It allowed the banks to operate across State lines and to merge the investment banks with the depository banks - so the investment banks could then gamble with the depositor's money. this made the whole secondary derivative market possible.

                                  Why can Greenspan, Rubin, and Summers be considered the Fathers of the Crash? what did they do, or cause to NOT be done, that essentially made the crashes inevitable?

                                  Because they're the people who, when the Federal Government financial regulatory structure wanted to regulate the MBDs, blocked them from doing so. So because of these three, the MBDs were completely unregulated by anyone.

                                  Tell me, how did a US housing bubble bursting take down the economies of most of the world? (Here's a freeby - The entire US economy is only around $14 to 15 Tn a year - MUCH too small to have that kind of effect.)

                                  Because of the leverage rates mentioned above. And because most of the world's banks have a t least some of these things (MBDs) on their balance sheets, but they're not telling anyone else how deep their exposure is. So the banks aren't lending because they don't know if the other bank is solvent - or not - so they don't know if they'll be paid back. So no one's lending to anyone else, because they don't trust each other, and that situation will obtain until the MBDs are dealt with. (TARP was supposed to do that - but Paulson didn't. Now it looks like they might be trying to work a rope-a-dope maneuver on them like they did with Citi and GM. I posted an article on that.)

                                  http://nofluer.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/29/2370467-bernanke-is-fighting-the-last-war-

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.23 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:53 PM EDT
                                  Nofluer

                                  Nicey #13.22

                                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_funds_rate

                                  In the United States, the federal funds rate is the interest rate at which private depository institutions (mostly banks) lend balances (federal funds) at the Federal Reserve to other depository institutions, usually overnight.[1] It is the interest rate banks charge each other for loans.[2] Changing the target rate is one way the Chairman of the Federal Reserve can influence the supply of money in the U.S. economy.[3].

                                  If you want a source other than a Wiki, just use "Federal Funds Rate" as your search string.

                                  My apologies - I assumed a level of economic education you haven't yet achieved. (No offense intended.) Lack of education can be remedied.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #13.24 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:04 PM EDT
                                  Nicey-1026620

                                  If you want a source other than a Wiki, just use "Federal Funds Rate" as your search string.

                                  My apologies - I assumed a level of economic education you haven't yet achieved. (No offense intended.) Lack of education can be remedied.

                                  I think you're overstimating the ability of the Feds Fund Rate to control the economy. It's a bit like saying there's a magic lever somewhere that can start and stop a very complex 15 trillion dollar economy.

                                  It's just a naive view (from my perspective, and no offense intended).

                                  I certainly think the Fed can do things to manage the economy, but I don't think they can control it completely. Not yet anyway.

                                  I watched Zietgiest this weekend, which matches your views near 100% in regards to the Federal Reserve, it's operations, etc.

                                  My only problem is the assumption that 100s, 1000s, 10,000s of people would work hand in hand to such an end with no dissention. It's near on impossible to get people to agree to something, especially people who all have power.

                                  I know about all the things you are talking about, I simply have a different interpretation. But it is possible, as "Zietgiest" points out, I'm the naive one. I believe I am free and have freedoms but am not truly free.

                                  I have assumed that the Fed having 6 acting Government placed governors and 5 private does have the ability to operate not exclusively for the benefit of private banks. And the Fed also being owned by 1000s of Banks cannot merely be controlled by the top 5 who have a large amount of assets.

                                  However, it is interesting to note that the Fed is now physically purchasing assets. Another level of control. Now, instead of a bank (one assumes competitive, and still beholden to customers to some extent) owning debt, the Fed owns debt. Which the Fed is not directly, or even arguably indirectly beholden to any bank customer or citizen at all.

                                  The proposal being that the Fed simply exists to loan money at interest, and the Government is simply another customer using Income Tax to pay for its interest. But then again, what am I going to do about that?

                                  I can't not pay income taxes, I can try to not use debt, though that is difficult for a young person when getting a car, or a house, etc.

                                    #13.25 - Tue Sep 8, 2009 10:48 AM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    Mike Nowicki

                                    Keep talking Joe...you are a ray of sunshine.

                                    America needs to hear more from Bobby Gibbs too...

                                    • 1 vote
                                    Reply#14 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:26 PM EDT
                                    Nofluer

                                    I love to hear Biden talk - he's a liar's liar. He just keeps on repeating the BS he's putting out like it was absolute truth and the stupid and gullible and "faithrful" run around saying it to other people, and pretty soon you've proven that there are a LOT of stupid gullible people in the world who'll believe anything just because it sounds good and it's what they want to hear.

                                    Unemployment claims went UP 570,000 more jobs last month. Where are all these jobs they're "saving"? Just think, if they weren't "saving" so many jobs, maybe we could experience a REAL recovery, not the phony one coming out of the mouths of the Obama misadministration and from the thieves on Wall Street and in the Fed.

                                    You had to know we were in trouble when Obama seemed to be deliberatly picking tax cheats and crooks for his "team."

                                    • 3 votes
                                    Reply#15 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:46 PM EDT
                                    Greg Johnson-900798

                                    First of all, the small recovery we're seeing now would have happened with or without the stimulous package and is, in fact, happening without it. Since only something like 10% of the stimulous package has been distributed it is hardly responsible for any effect on the economy, good or bad.

                                    Second, unemployment continues to rise and the recession will not end until that turns around. As a sidebar, today is the 90th day since obama promised 600,000 jobs in 100 days. He has 10 days left to create those 600,000 plus those that have been lost since he made the promise on June 8th. Aint gunna happen.

                                    • 3 votes
                                    Reply#16 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 12:53 PM EDT
                                    WILDWONDERFUL

                                    Does anybody here feel the benefit of the Stimulus Package ?

                                      Reply#17 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:10 PM EDT
                                      A-s-gi-li

                                      My 401k is back to where it was January of 2008!!

                                        #17.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:13 PM EDT
                                        c anderson

                                        Mine is almost there. Of course, that's not calculating all of the additional money contributed every month. If you include that, it's still WAY down.

                                          #17.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:16 PM EDT
                                          A-s-gi-li

                                          When it started to slide down hill, I pulled 1/2 out and put it in a savings account. It's still there.

                                            #17.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:21 PM EDT
                                            c anderson

                                            I let my withholding contributions continue. If the economy comes back bigtime--I'll have bought a whole lot of investment for pennies on the dollar. It's all just a big gamble no matter how you slice it.

                                              #17.4 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 1:26 PM EDT
                                              Wally-1185501

                                              WILDWONDERFUL...

                                              I'm feeling something, but I wouldn't exactly call it stimulating....More like...nausea...!!!

                                                #17.5 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 6:26 PM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                tjwhalen

                                                Nearly 200 days into the effort, Biden delivered an upbeat report card about the $787 billion rescue effort that President Barack Obama pushed through Congress. He quoted estimates by private analysts that the plan has created or saved 500,000 to 750,000 jobs so far. But many millions remain out of work.

                                                I thought I heard the Federal Government can't track the true number of jobs "saved". He could say any number and no one will be able to verify it. The stimulus plan was a disaster from the start. I see road construction crews hard at work, that's good. YET THE SAME ROADS WILL NEED PAVING AGAIN IN THREE YEARS!!

                                                Our Vice President is an imbecile. It's not like he's next in line to be President or anything like that. Joe Biden is President Obama's first really big mistake. I don't have access to the secret meetings, but what is the value added with Joe Biden? He's laughable.

                                                • 1 vote
                                                Reply#18 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:04 PM EDT
                                                Wally-1185501

                                                Lies are cheap...you don't have to print any new money for words...Now we're in a "stall" mode...Barry sees that America doesn't want his HealthCare Reform shoved down their throats, so what does he do...??? He's saying that there may have to be some compromise...Duh...Have they thought about compromise,...??? No...so Biden stands up and redirects the attention(so he thinks) of Americans to "How well the stimulus is working...even ahead of schedule..." Brilliant...Where did Barry find this guy...?? Tell that to all of those who are still unemployed, and to the car dealers that are yet to be paid(sometimes millions per dealership) over another stupid stimulus program...Wake up liberal America...get your heads out of your duffle bags....

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #18.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:10 PM EDT
                                                Reply
                                                careercarguy

                                                Apparently the King doesn't care. Did anybody notice that Barry and the fam are on still ANOTHER vacation in Camp David????????

                                                How do I get this gig? In office for what 8 months and already on their fourth vacation?

                                                This administration is completely out of touch with the very people that elected them! i just have a few questions.... let's start with WHERE ARE THE JOBS???????????????????????

                                                • 1 vote
                                                Reply#19 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:06 PM EDT
                                                OBAMA-FAN

                                                I guess you forget that Bush took August 2001 off!

                                                Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas.

                                                Article: Bush gets annual physical exam, begins monthlong vacation

                                                Article from:
                                                AP Worldstream
                                                Article date:
                                                August 2, 2003 CopyrightProvided by ProQuest LLC. (Hide copyright information)

                                                Like most of us parents, we like to take vacations with our families before school starts!

                                                • 1 vote
                                                #19.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:21 PM EDT
                                                careercarguy

                                                Please! The Bush vacation was on the Bush Ranch on the Bush dime. I too am a parent, and I don't take vacation when there is work to be done!

                                                  #19.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:26 PM EDT
                                                  c anderson

                                                  Again with the BUSH, but Bush?

                                                  We can agree that Bush took much too much time off. That's for sure.

                                                  But, I keep asking the same question and never get an answer. How does the behavior of one person excuse the behavior of another? They BOTH take too much time off.

                                                  • 3 votes
                                                  #19.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
                                                  tjwhalen

                                                  Why when defending President Obama, do the defenders run back to former President Bush. So it's OK the President takes off more time because the former President did it?

                                                  Would it be OK to have an affair with a White House intern?

                                                  The logic of the argument is that former President Bush had weaknesses? Yes that's very true, but you all complained about it then and are using it as a defence now.

                                                  Dual standards. Laughable.

                                                  • 3 votes
                                                  #19.4 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:34 PM EDT
                                                  OBAMA-FAN

                                                  But, I keep asking the same question and never get an answer. How does the behavior of one person excuse the behavior of another?

                                                  No one it trying to excuse anything! THE ENTIRE CONGRESS IS ON VACATION!!! you mean to tell me that the president can't take some time off to be with his family?

                                                  career,

                                                  Please! The Bush vacation was on the Bush Ranch on the Bush dime. I too am a parent, and I don't take vacation when there is work to be done!

                                                  So now it went from him being on vacation to the cost of the vacation? LMAO!! You think since Bush was on his ranch that there was no taxpayer cost? how about his security and travel? I'm sure he didn't fly JetBlue!

                                                  tj

                                                  Why when defending President Obama, do the defenders run back to former President Bush. So it's OK the President takes off more time because the former President did it?

                                                  It's not about defending anyone! I just never saw this level of Bitching when Bush was on a month long vacations! So it begs the question, why complain with this president and not the last? Simple!

                                                  • 1 vote
                                                  #19.5 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:22 PM EDT
                                                  c anderson

                                                  If you never saw this amount of complaining, You weren't looking. I was one of those complaining.

                                                  "THE ENTIRE CONGRESS IS ON VACATION!!! you mean to tell me that the president can't take some time off to be with his family?"

                                                  Same was true for Bush. The entire Congress was off when he was off during Katrina.

                                                  The But Bush, But Bush, But Bush is getting sillier and sillier. The explanations afterwards are getting even sillier.

                                                    #19.6 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:26 PM EDT
                                                    OBAMA-FAN

                                                    Same was true for Bush. The entire Congress was off when he was off during Katrina.

                                                    Seems like Bush was BS'ing during or just before both of america's biggest tragedies! Coincidence? LMAO

                                                    What's silly is you all bitching about this man spending time with his family! That's silly! Bush aside, he is spending time with his family while Congress is on vacation! If you have a problem with that you'll just have to deal with it. No one is going to hurry him back to D.C. to appease some silly over scrutinizing bloggers with nothing better to do but complain about the presidents vacation!

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #19.7 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
                                                    Reply
                                                    tjwhalen

                                                    One more point Obama-Fan , "like most of us parents". President Obama is the President and leader of the free world. He's not "like most of us parents". His personal life comes after his job. His priorities are job first, family next or after whatever else he has on his priorities list as second (if anything). Job is first as President.

                                                    Frankly, I doubt he really gets any time off, but to portray it as time needed. Sorry, he's the President, he asked for it, he got it.

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    Reply#20 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:39 PM EDT
                                                    OBAMA-FAN

                                                    His personal life comes after his job. His priorities are job first, family next or after whatever else he has on his priorities list as second (if anything). Job is first as President.

                                                    I don't care what my occupation is, my family comes first regardless! If i as president choose to take time off to spend with my family, I'll do just that! For gods sake you people act like he is incommunicado! He's the damn president. He is still briefed daily!

                                                    Frankly, I doubt he really gets any time off, but to portray it as time needed. Sorry, he's the President, he asked for it, he got it.

                                                    And he's on vacation so deal with it and stop bitching!

                                                    • 1 vote
                                                    #20.1 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
                                                    c anderson

                                                    The truth is (gasp) I totally agree with everything you just said. Now ,just explain why it applies to Obama and not to Bush.

                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    #20.2 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
                                                    OBAMA-FAN

                                                    C anderson,

                                                    LOL....I never said it didn't apply. I simply have a problem with the double standard. At this time in Bush's first term he had already taken a month off. Obama takes of 2 weeks and suddenly he's a slacker! I don't get it! If people are upset with Obama's time off, they should have been twice as upset with Bush's time off! I personally don't see a point in it! When I take time off, if I'm home i remote in and check on the office! If i'm out of town I have my blackberry. Does anyone really think the president comes back after a week on vacation, walks into the senate and says "O.K. what did I miss?"

                                                    • 2 votes
                                                    #20.3 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:58 PM EDT
                                                    c anderson

                                                    Careful, we're almost starting to agree here. (the sun may freeze and the earth may burn!!!!)I made the same comments about Bush--a president is never really on vacation.

                                                    I'm just asking that we hold everyone to the same standard regardless of party.

                                                    I admit it, I complained about both of them.

                                                      #20.4 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:04 PM EDT
                                                      OBAMA-FAN

                                                      I'm just asking that we hold everyone to the same standard regardless of party.

                                                      That is all i'm asking as well. See! We can agree on somethings!! LOL Bipartisanship at work! LOL

                                                      Friend request forthcoming....

                                                        #20.5 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:28 PM EDT
                                                        c anderson

                                                        Aw, shuckie-darn. I'm flattered. Acceptance will respond.

                                                        We can still call each other names, can't we.

                                                          #20.6 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:31 PM EDT
                                                          OBAMA-FAN

                                                          We can still call each other names, can't we.

                                                          Do you really have to ask that, knucklehead? j/k LMAO!

                                                            #20.7 - Fri Sep 4, 2009 9:05 AM EDT
                                                            Reply
                                                            Wally-1185501

                                                            Hey...All ya'll quit whining....we'll take care of this mistake in 2010, and 2012....

                                                              Reply#21 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:50 PM EDT
                                                              Wally-1185501

                                                              TJ

                                                              Ahh...yes..!!! You reminded me of those wonderful Clinton white house years...The guy who never "inhaled"...oh, and don't forget the infamous "define s-e-x"...Maybe we don't have it so bad right now after all........the libs..............ya gotta love 'em...!!!

                                                                Reply#22 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
                                                                picker335

                                                                Who is Biden?

                                                                • 1 vote
                                                                Reply#23 - Thu Sep 3, 2009 5:22 PM EDT
                                                                WILDWONDERFUL

                                                                So we still believe the Stimulus is accomplishing no jobs ?

                                                                  Reply#24 - Fri Sep 4, 2009 5:59 AM EDT
                                                                  questforfire

                                                                  So we still believe the Stimulus is accomplishing no jobs ?

                                                                  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

                                                                  "Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in August (-216,000),
                                                                  and the unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
                                                                  Statistics reported today."

                                                                  So the answer is "Yes, we still believe the STimuls is accomplishing no jobs".

                                                                  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

                                                                    #24.1 - Fri Sep 4, 2009 4:19 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    c anderson

                                                                    Does anyone realize that these unemployment numbers are just a tad misleading? We don't just need the number who lost their job to get the picture. We need the percentage.

                                                                    If I employ 48 people and layoff 12, I have laid off 25% of my work force. So now I have 36 employees. So, if I lay off 8 the next week, my number of layoffs is down--I still laid off 25%. It should be a percentage of the currently employed that lose there jobs.

                                                                    Could be that less people are getting laid off because there are less people available for layoff.

                                                                      Reply#25 - Fri Sep 4, 2009 5:18 PM EDT
                                                                      Lampell

                                                                      Could be that less people are getting laid off because there are less people available for layoff

                                                                      Now a cynic might say the object of the excercise is to lay off as many people as possible before the midterm elections and then to hire some so that the unemployment rate will be seen as improving:) And of course to state that without a stimulus package everyone would have been laid off so the stimulus saved gazillions of jobs:)

                                                                        #25.1 - Fri Sep 4, 2009 5:44 PM EDT
                                                                        c anderson

                                                                        I suppose a cynic might. I did not say that and I hope it isn't true. I said that fewer people are available for layoff. This skews the figures.

                                                                          #25.2 - Fri Sep 4, 2009 6:55 PM EDT
                                                                          WatchTheOtherHand

                                                                          I believe the unemployment percentage is based on a static figure obtained during a census. The estimate is based on approx. 160 million million "worker aged" adults that would typically be employed in full-time jobs. The misleading number is that it only counts people receiving unemployment compensation. So if 16 million people are receiving compensation checks than the unemployment rate is 10%.

                                                                          It doesn't count the number of people that accepted part time work because full time work is unavailable, nor does it count people that are not working that are not receiving unemployment benefits. These could be people that were fired for policy violations, used up their maximum benefits, or simply never applied for unemployment benefits. If you add up the total number of 'jobs' being reported and used that number compared to the number of available workers than the unemployment rate is closer to 17%.

                                                                            #25.3 - Sat Sep 5, 2009 8:52 AM EDT
                                                                            Reply
                                                                            Jump to discussion page: 1 2
                                                                            Leave a Comment:
                                                                            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                            You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                            (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                            Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                            FUN STUFF:
                                                                            • Leaderboard |
                                                                            • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                            • Top of the Vine |
                                                                            • Newsvine Live |
                                                                            • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                            • The Greenhouse
                                                                            COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                            • Code of Honor |
                                                                            • Company Info |
                                                                            • Contact Us |
                                                                            • Jobs |
                                                                            • User Agreement |
                                                                            • Privacy Policy |
                                                                            • About our ads
                                                                            LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                            • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                            • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                            • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com